Groundhog Day for Cycling?

Soon after Lance Armstrong announced that he was stepping down as chairman of the cancer foundation that bears his name and Nike finally announced it had severed ties with the Texan, the Twitter masses took to their scrolling feeds, exhorting their opinions on the two massive announcements in Armstrong’s world. Most commenters were applauding the decision, and interestingly enough, many began to blame Nike for the hero worship of Armstrong and the corporation’s part in what many are tagging “the greatest sporting fraud in history.”

From 1999 to just a mere month ago, Armstrong (and his minions) threatened, bullied, sued, intimidated, and bought off the media, his sponsors, his teammates, and allegedly members of national federations and the UCI to ensure their silence. Armstrong was the toast of Hollywood. He was the darling of the political set. It was a fairy tale story.

Last night during an appearance on Bicycle Radio about the Armstrong experience, one of the co-hosts asked my thoughts on why no one outside of a small group of journalists was willing to chase the story. I launched into my usual thoughts about intimidation and deep pockets, but I neglected to touch on one big aspect of the Armstrong narrative.

Greed.

Trek, SRAM, Honey Stinger, Nike, USA Cycling, and the rest saw an opportunity to profit from the Armstrong story. These are the same entities that are beginning to make their exodus away from the fallen superstar, as it isn’t in their financial interests to continue. That’s just good business right? I mean, now that he’s been exposed as a fraud, they should be heading to the exits. But shouldn’t they also come under scrutiny for being willing participants in the fraud? As the months go by, I’m sure we’ll have more stories about employees from all those organisations being intimately involved in hiding what occurred, as David Walsh himself pointed out on Twitter earlier on Wednesday.

There is an inherent danger in the way that professional cycling is structured. The heavy reliance on team sponsorship dollars has created this pot of unfortunate soup. Sponsors can hold teams hostage based upon performance, which can trigger the use of shortcuts. Or, powerful teams can turn the tables on sponsors in a similar fashion, as Armstrong did with some of his smaller sponsors, including forcing an Oakley employee to lie under oath, a fact that has been exposed in this whole sordid affair.

Race organisers are complicit in this, as they all – aside from RCS – have refused to engage in a dialogue to create a mutually-beneficial solution for the teams, the riders, and the organisers. Sole reliance on sponsor dollars for all three is the slippery slope leading to a repeat of “Armstrong Armageddon.”

But can this possibly repeat itself? Could we have another situation where a confluence of circumstances creates another “anointed one?” Guess what? It’s already happened.

Brad Wiggins.

Team Sky, with the assistance of their sponsors and a brigade of backroom backers (including Geert Leinders), created the second coming of Armstrong. The British media have glommed onto the Wiggins story like piranhas feasting on an unsuspecting Bond villain. So have the sponsors. So have the fans. Pressure for him to win a SPOTY. Pressure for him to be knighted. Pressure to start some sort of foundation. Pressure to win more Tours, Giros, and Vueltas. He even has his own line of clothing, for heaven’s sake.

Wiggins seen with a plaster on his arm after the individual time trial on July 21st, during a video interview with Ned Boulting for ITV.

What’s interesting is that he’s only won one Tour. That’s it. We didn’t see this sort of Messianic treatment of Cadel Evans in Australia. Sure the Aussie was popular, but was he exalted? Did Evans refer to people as c*nts? Did Evans blacklist media outlet after media outlet? No. And guess what? It’s not Wiggins’ fault. Not entirely. He’s fallen under the spell of Murdoch. Of Brailsford. Of Adidas. Of Fred Perry. Of the British entertainment industry.

In fact, as an experiment I posted a dubious photo of Brad Wiggins, screengrabbed during an interview with Ned Boulting on July 21st, 2012. The interview took place after the punishing individual time trial, which Wiggins won by a country mile. We had an expert examine the photo, who stated it’s the median cubital vein that’s been tapped based on the position of the plaster.

The UCI Regulations now prohibit injections that have the aim of artificially improving performance or helping recovery. It means riders can no longer inject vitamins, sugars, enzymes, amino acids or antioxidants to aid recovery. It is hoped the ban will contribute to the eradication of doping by greatly reducing the use of injections in cycling.

Herein lies the problem. No one asked why Wiggins had a plaster, and the interesting fact is that Boulting, who conducted the interview, didn’t find the plaster on Wiggins arm as strange. According to sources within the Tour de France, there wasn’t any blood drawn for anti-doping purposes on that day. So why did Wiggins have a plaster on his arm? It couldn’t have been for medicinal purposes, as a Team Sky doctor supported and asserted the no needles policy as “fantastic” during an interview with Lionel Birnie that appeared in the August 2011 edition of Cyclesport Magazine.

Does this mean Team Sky are doping? Certainly not. But it certainly raises the question, why was something injected or drawn out of Wiggins? Based upon the many responses I received on Twitter accusing me of hating Team Sky, having an agenda, and accusing them of doping, all the while vociferously defending Wiggins and Team Sky, I’ve concluded that the general public still has a long way to go. We’ve gone from a culture of “Trust, but verify” to “Ignore until it becomes a problem for us.”

The British media and British companies have queued up around the corner to get their pound of Wiggins flesh to benefit their own public relations and marketing aims. The vast majority were only concerned with “first British winner of the Tour de France” and not the means it took to achieve said result.

Until the UCI takes a pro-active role, until the athletes themselves make a formal push, until the team owners and sponsors take responsibility to change the entire system, we are going to continue hoisting up cycling messiahs to crucify when we find them fallible and human. I hope the example of Brad Wiggins isn’t the next chapter of our sordid and sorry history.

The tough questions need to be asked of national federations and the UCI, who have helped perpetuate our current trauma with the assistance of the laundry list of corporations looking to make a profit on the backs of those who organise and compete in the sport. Stronger governance of the existing rules and constitutions of all organisations is required.

What are we prepared to do?

**************************************

Epilogue, 20 October 2012

A Team Sky official took umbrage with the piece, and chose to focus on the picture of the plaster used to illustrate the commentary. As we’ve seen by the comments below, everyone has become more concerned about the doping issue rather than philosophical questions I raised.

Apparently this piece created enough of a stir that Team Sky published via Twitter a picture of the doping control notification, which we are also including here. While it’s that great Team Sky is choosing to be transparent in this specific situation, the manner in which they have chosen to accomplish verification just demonstrates why I still struggle with how the team conducts its business. That has been reinforced by their misguided policy creation after the publication of this opinion piece of “no dopers allowed,” and “confess and you’re fired.”

Other journalists have come out attacking the piece in support of Team Sky. Again, this is reminiscent of the Armstrong times.

The fact that Team Sky has chosen to taken to attack on Twitter, rather than taking the high road, also reinforces my feelings from the piece.

You Might Also Like

96 Comments

NorreneGodfrey says:October 17, 2012 at 2:05 pm

Good insights here, but as a person who works with young athletes, I also ask the media itself to take a pro-active role in culture change. In this month’s velonews, 3 young athletes have been depicted as heroes to change the sport. . . .but have we, the media and public just set these three athletes up to fail or put undo pressure on them? Forcing them into the pressure cooker of having to win, thus creating a repeat cycle here as well? I don’t know the answer, I’m just asking the question.

NorreneGodfrey A very good question. In the case of Taylor Phinney, as one example, who has come out with his staunch position bodes well for the sport. He walks the walk. The fact that his team doesn’t focus completely on winning means he has a chance to escape the cycle.

UCI_Overlord NorreneGodfrey Phinney’s team doesn’t focus completely on winning? Bullshit. Of course they do; they’d be a second-rate team if they didn’t, and they certainly wouldn’t be in the grand tours. Another thing. If Wiggins was doping/had something to hide, don’t you think he (or at least his staff) would have had the sense to take the plaster off and put on a bit of slap, a la Armstrong, before putting himself up for this interview and photograph?

This is cycling’s equivalent to the Salem Witch Trials now. If you really know Sky / Wiggins are doping; go ahead and say it. As a professed industry insider (read: Twitter suck up to the people actually on the circuit), you should know.
What amuses me is that you’ve been out for Wiggins since the tour. You didn’t like his personality before, the fact that Froome pulled him through the mountains (and the fact that Froome wasn’t let free to go for the win), his swearing in press conferences, his winning via a time trial (rather than smashing his opposition with perceived panache in the mountains). Hell, even his Guardian article explaining his stance on doping was definitely ghost written according to you.
Is it so out of the question that he won it clean? He finished 4th in 2009, riding you your favourite team (you should tweet your mate Vaughters about that), and finished behind Armstrong, Schleck and Contador. Last time I checked, none of them rode in 2012 and the course heavily favoured a time trialer who can climb. By that logic, is it out of the question that he might just not have doped and legitimately won? What’s more, the people on Garmin that actually know him have gone on record saying the win was clean; but then you’re only interested in their opinion when it lines up with yours aren’t you?
I think perhaps you should spend some time laying in to the proven dopers (read: Contador, Valverde, Vino) that you seem to favour so much before casting stones at Wiggins. But then they ride with panache, so that’s excusable right? Judging by your twitter feed it is anyway.

This is cycling’s equivalent to the Salem Witch Trials now. If you really know Sky / Wiggins are doping; go ahead and say it. As a professed industry insider (read: Twitter suck up to the people actually on the circuit), you should know.
What amuses me is that you’ve been out for Wiggins since the tour. You didn’t like his personality before, the fact that Froome pulled him through the mountains (and the fact that Froome wasn’t let free to go for the win), his swearing in press conferences, his winning via a time trial (rather than smashing his opposition with perceived panache in the mountains). Hell, even his Guardian article explaining his stance on doping was definitely ghost written according to you.
Is it so out of the question that he won it clean? He finished 4th in 2009, riding for your favourite team (you should tweet your mate Vaughters about that), and finished behind Armstrong, Schleck and Contador. Last time I checked, none of them rode in 2012 and the course heavily favoured a time trialer who can climb. By that logic, is it out of the question that he might just not have doped and legitimately won? What’s more, the people on Garmin that actually know him have gone on record saying the win was clean; but then you’re only interested in their opinion when it lines up with yours aren’t you?
I think perhaps you should spend some time laying in to the proven dopers (read: Contador, Valverde, Vino) that you seem to favour so much before casting stones at Wiggins. But then they ride with panache, so that’s excusable right? Judging by your twitter feed it is anyway.

Alistair7 You’ve pretty much missed the whole point of the article. The point is not whether Brad doped or not. But thanks for your fanboy comments. Reminds me of another era. And thanks for reinforcing my experiment. Slainte!

Alistair7 UCI_Overlord Alistair I think you are overreacting and reading more into the post than what is there. In the current environment the photo is interesting for the reason stated, that in light of the no needle regulation it wasn’t commented upon (or better explained beforehand). That it was Wiggins is incidental to the discussion.

UCI_Overlord Alistair7 I don’t think @Alistair7 missed the point at all, I think you’re trying to imply that Wiggins was doped but haven’t the courage to come out and say it, or to use your own name rather than a pretentious nom de plume.

Flaco Alistair7 Clearly I don’t know the answer, as I don’t know Wiggins, but if you want me to take a guess (not that it’s worth anything), I’d say he (and Brailsford probably) saw him as a potentially disruptive influence during the key part of their season. By that, to be clear, I mean asking perceived irritating questions, not uncovering Sky’s intercontinental doping ring.
Kimmage has been instrumental in anti doping, and I doff my cap to him, but he’s not the most easy to get along with character. By all accounts, neither is Bradley Wiggins. He probably just didn’t want someone who he thought was a bit of a chopper up in his face after every stage.
Still waiting for my questions to be answered by our resident ‘investigative journalist’ / ‘satirist’. Won’t hold my breath.

Alistair7 Flaco I agree this would be the innocent explanation – TdF is stressful enough without having someone in your face for three weeks. By all accounts Kimmage is quite an abrasive character – might make him a good journalist but not necessarily someone you’d want to spend 3 weeks with on a coach. Wiggins is very private/shy/bolshy so Brailsford probably got cold feet too, seeing lots of potential for strops (remember Wiggo throwing down bike in 2010 TdF?).

Matt Grist Alistair7 I’m understand it could be very stressful, but again, why if Garmin was able to handle that pressure with no problem it all, why Sky can’t? It seems like Wiggins stating to do very well after Sky hired Dr Leinders, another thing, Wiggins won every stage race the he enter, then team Sky go to the tour and the the whole team ride in the front of the peloton like USPS style, that’s “Not normal” I have being riding long enough to know what could be normal. BTW. You should read Kimmage article about Wiggins, before Wiggins became a super Wiggins, I don’t hate Wiggins, I just being real, to me, his behave are not normal. It’s like I’m watching another Lance in the making and we know where is Lance now. Journalist should ask riders the most uncomfortable question, that’s why they are there, not to say what riders want to hear and that’s what Kimmage and Walsh had done a great job.

Flaco Matt Grist Alistair7 Who’s to say they did handle the pressure? I don’t think he traveled with them again afterwards. Or any other team for that matter. Might be wrong though.
I’ve read Kimmage’s article about him and didn’t think much of it. I didn’t think much of his tantrum on twitter about not being let on the bus either, but he must be under a lot of stress at the moment, so whatever really. For me it seemed sour grapes as much as anything else.
I get your argument, but for me, it always comes back to his 2009 result, as I mentioned in my post above. It was done on the perceived ‘cleanest team’. He started to become ‘Super Wiggins’ then. 2010 his form bombed, 2011 he rode to a high level again and in 2012 the parcours was so well suited to him that he was pretty much favourite.
I get your point about the USPS-style riding, but Sky have a pretty strong, well drilled team. From what I can remember (not got time to check), times in 2012 were down again. Also, Wiggins himself never climbed abnormally really. He was the weakest of the elite climbers and the best time trialist (as he should be).
I really don’t think he’s another Lance. From what I can tell, he’s a pretty shy bloke. He doesn’t seem comfortable with the limelight. What’s more Ignoring the fact that Lance was properly doped up, Wiggins is a much more average rider. Truth be told, this will probably be his biggest achievement; I’m not sure he’ll win another grand tour.
Anyway, I can’t go back and forth forever. I only wrote on here because I take exception to the crap spewed up on this website and on this bloke’s twitter feed. Otherwise I just try to enjoy the sport as I’m sure you do to.

Excellent article. I think Ned Boulting is a bit more than a Wiggins fanboy queuing up for his pound of flesh, but the dilemma him and others are in is that it’s his job to get exclusive access to Wiggins. If he starts asking awkward questions he’ll probably find he’ll get less access (or singled out, as Kimmage was, as someone Wiggins didn’t want around) and then he’s kind of useless to ITV and loses his job. Hopefully the bone idol idle w*nkers on blogs and Twitter will continue asking the right questions and giving professional journos a bit of a nudge but it’s still a catch-22 for many of them, which is part of the problem. It goes back to what you were saying about the structures of pro cycling, I guess.

There’s a good book called The Invisible Gorilla. In it, psychologists talk about how individuals can fail to observe something right in front of them. So not seeing the plaster may not be a conspiracy, but a failure of attention.
theinvisiblegorilla.com
But now that it has been pointed out, it can’t be ignored.

AlpineClimbr Great illustration and comparison! The plaster is representative of an oversight by Team Sky but the justification by Team Sky on twitter is gibberish as I pointed out above. And now it can’t be ignored, as cycling media are now interested on how it occurred.

For a team like Sky to miss such an obvious detail such as the plaster.. I don’t see it. They are extremely attentive to every aspect of their team and to suddenly overlook the plaster which was covered to conceal them breaking a rule.. I somehow doubt that would have happened

sidney Sidney, I appreciate your comment. And this is my point. We’ve immediately assumed the best, rather than “Trust, but verify.” And the fact a Team Sky representative chose to try to intimidate us on twitter, and refuses to interact with me on twitter speaks volumes in my mind. We’re apparently important enough to slag, but not important enough to have a meaningful dialogue.

UCI_Overlord sidney The problem is there are a lot of people out there who go on the offensive whenever Sky or for that matter many other teams and people involved in the sport release statements or do something worth taking note of. I post in the clinic on CN and other equivalents and there is never a stop to the endless suppositions and conspiracy theories concerning Sky. What is more is that they are stated in an aggressive and arrogant way which seems to imply there is only one possibility. This puts many people like me in a defensive position where we feel obliged to defend Sky and subsequently many people associate any questioning of Sky and their doping integrity as an attack such as those described above. This is the same with Sky, they feel they are being attacked by the fans and the whole PR scene is turned into a pitch battle so to speak. I am of no doubt that if of the opinion that the query originates from genuine interest Sky would answer, unfortunately the way that doping discussions are conducted nowadays do not facilitate, encourage or even make viable such communications.

So the point of the article is that Wiggins is the next Armstrong and is acting just like him (Groundhog Day). by acting just like him you presumably mean doping and lying about it.
Your evidence is an unexplained plaster on Wiggins’ arm and Sky’s employment of Leinders.
Hasn’t Fran Millar just explained the plaster on twitter? Wiggins had a post TT blood test.
So the story boils down to inferring Wiggins is a doping cheat and a liar like Armstrong because of his team’s association with Leinders. Is that the crux of it?

gilbert_george Actually no, it’s not about the doping. it’s about the attitude surrounding him. The attitude by Team Sky mirrors similar attitudes at Armstrong’s teams. I chose to illustrate the Wiggins photo because it was a curiosity, based upon the facts available.

UCI_Overlord gilbert_george What exactly are you charging them with?
It looked like you were saying he doped but your evidence has evaporated, so what are you saying?
Sorry, but you look like you are attacking Sky for being Sky not for anything specific.

Who did Wiggins refer to as cunts? I seem to recall it was those who made anonymous insinuations about doping. Now who would do a thing like that? Perhaps someone without the courage to put his (or her) name on his (or her) writing.

The problem with doping is that you can never prove that someone is clean. That, I suspect, is why journalists tread lightly. It is very easy to begin a smear, but almost impossible to prove it untrue.
I also think that is why Wiggins has been getting so tetchy over the subject of doping this year – now that he is winning he realises how easily he could be brought down by innuendo.
I have no idea if Wiggins is clean or not, I have no idea if the peloton is mostly clean or mostly doping. But I do know that when cycling finally is clean, it will take another decade for people to trust it again and the innuendo to stop.

ddraver Actually, no. It’s no different than Hein Verbruggen saying “never, never, never” or Lance stating “I passed 500 tests.” The UCI protocols for doping controls contradict her statement, which makes the statement curious. In fact, it now has caught the interest of members of the media for follow up.
In fact here is the doping control protocol for World Calendar races in stage races:
1. World Calendar leader after first stage if present
2. World Calendar leader after last stage if present
3. Winner of the stage
4. The leader of GC after the stage
5. 2 riders selected at random.
Typical protocol calls for urine analysis only. Bloods are typically reserved for later in the evening or first thing in the morning, and do not typically involve the race at hand, but rather surprise controls related to their status as an athlete in general.
The interview by Boulting occurred shortly after the stage conclusion, and Wiggins was receiving a massage. As stated in the piece, this is not about doping. Nor is the accusation that he is doping. At worst, it could mean that Team Sky violated the no needle policy implemented in May of 2011, which has a fine/sanction associated. At best it means they were doing their own internal programme.
However, Fran Millar’s assertion means that no, Team Sky were not doing internal blood analysis.
So again, why they’ve chosen to take exception is curious indeed, considering my previous pieces, and other commentators who have discussed the subject at length.

UCI_Overlord ddraver Will you publish the e-mail she sent to lesli@cyclismas.com? Or are you perhaps only interested in transparency when it suits.
Maybe the typical actions were nt applied as a surprise test? It is not typical to test the top 5 of the stage either. There are many other totally innocent reasons that you have not covered! (and which Sky, through Fran Millar have supplied to you, and I assume you ll let us see when you have time to upload them, if not then we need to know that as well vis a vis transparency and all that noise)

ddraver UCI_Overlord She posted her comments from the email on her twitter feed as well, which shows the intent of her actions. Her defense was the Top 5 had blood tests after the stage. And if there were other innocent reasons, why didn’t she state that?

UCI_Overlord ddraver why is that not an innocent reason. Perhaps you should be asking the UCI (or whoever, I forget) why they differed from protocol?
WRT Sydney – come off it. A correction is not the same as intimidation, if you re wrong, have the guts to admit it! (if!)

Did you think of looking at the pictures of Wiggins finishing the TT? His right hand in the air, the site of the plaster clearly in view, no sign of plaster or puncture. Clearly, the plaster had recently been placed there, presumably after a blood test. Perhaps Ned Boulting is more aware with what happens in the Tour than ‘UCI_Overlord’ is, possibly because Boulting is a professional journalist.

unoghoulie UCI_Overlord Do you see the Paul Kimmage defense fund on the home page? Do you know what David Walsh or GL went through over the years? Why should he put his name down? As far a I’m concerned these cyclists don’t need names, they have done nothing to earn our trust.

sideshadow unoghoulie UCI_Overlord this group is raking everyone over the coals for using the excuse of fear and intimidation in the past to excuse what they were seeing. they would be smart not to utilize it for themselves or risk being painted with the same brush. GL, DW and others are heroes with a face and name. this one….???

rider666 sideshadow unoghoulie UCI_Overlord Sure, but my point is Lemond and Walsh weren’t treated as heroes, most people saw them as ‘trolls’ and that’s a fact. When Lance said Kimmage wasn’t worth the chair he’s sitting on, did anyone stand up for him? No. As a bonus for being a ‘hero’ he gets sued. I get what you’re saying, but I do think it’s easier to ask difficult and sometimes accusing questions from behind a pseudonym and maybe that’s what is needed.

As the leading points scoring team this year ( whatever that means) and having the TDF winner they have a responsibility, especially in the current climate, to show full transparency, openness and not pretend to be shocked at the depth that doping reached. It’s not about accusing them of being cheats. It’s about Sky giving the fans and riders the environment to enjoy and preform dope free.
Sky can still keep their annoying marginal gains and Tenerife training camps by simply recognising the past and being at the front for change The success of the team over the past year as well as their own anti doping policy gives them a great platform to be promoters of clean cycling, not the shirkers they are showing at the moment.

Hmm, perhaps fans are not the fools you take them to be and actually quite rational. Wiggins had no plaster during ITT and then one on his arm after. So something taken from him/injected after, not before race. He is open/unaware of plaster in interview so doesn’t seem like he has something to hide. No competitive days after ITT left in the race so no reason to inject anything to boost performance. Not a lot here to suggest he doped, so why do you think fans are uncritical idiots, taken in by Sky’s corporate machine/evil plot to take over the world or whatever it is you are accusing them of?
Sports need fans, fans need to believe. Sure in cycling they need to be sceptical but they are not idiots for thinking Wiggins is clean. It is naive to think a sport could survive by being followed by a bunch of dispassionate critics that never even let themselves support a rider in case he turns out to be doping.
As for your ad hominem points re Evans compared to Wiggins – people are different, so what? Some people swear, big deal. Wiggins is a working class lad made good after a difficult start in life. I’d rather his honest anger to the monotonous ‘I’ve never tested positive’ of Armstrong and Contador.

Sky claim the plaster followed a anti-doping blood test, anonymous sources within the tdf cited in the article claim no blood was drawn that day. One is clearly lying / misinformed. Overlord, care to follow up with the source and let us know who’s right?

neviscycles Considering the public response from Team Sky, there are several journalists who are following up with the riders/teams in question, and also with the agencies for clarification. It is pleasing to see.

UCI_Overlord neviscycles so no follow up with your source? that’s a shame. the information they provided you is not something that needs to be kept confidential, so why not name them (or ask them to publicly state their case or admit their misunderstanding)? Such transparency would add considerable weight to the neutral (well, i suppose we’re all on the same side!) observer’s faith in your journalism. Otherwise it’s just more distrust (as is apparent from some of the comments you’ve received) and we all lose out.Someday you might discover a real smoking gun and truly need to keep a source anonymous – this doesn’t seem like that moment.

A blood infusion before the TT with an extraction after the TT to get values back to ‘normal’ and also prevent reticulocyte depression from occurring, thus beating the ABP? This will require a large bore needle, which may cause prolonged bleeding and the need for a plaster, unlike the small gauge needles typically used for doping controls. What do you guys think? Possible?

Hey sideshadow check this out: http://pics.lockerz.com/s/254603043
What do you think?
Did you seriously think a systematic doping operation would leave a plaster on for the cameras? Did you see Wiggins ride on the front of the peloton leading Cavendish out? Look at the turn of speed about 1.5km out, think he could do that with blood taken out the day before?

Matt Grist sideshadow Dude, ‘back to normal levels’, that doesn’t mean below normal or anemic, so yes absolutely the leadout could be done. Still tough I accept the new evidence and admit I was wrong. But why is there still an hour from notification (17:40) to arrival at doping control (18:49). This has to be changed, otherwise it just gives all athletes time to do a saline flush or whatever else.

sideshadow I think logically, if your:
a) the best TT rider in the GC
b) already comfortably in the lead
c) not the strongest in the mountians
you not gonna be blood doping before a TT. If you were gonna be doing it it would be before a mountain stage, ie when a performance gain would really be needed.

Alistair7 What’s embarrassing? The question still stands why wasn’t this queried or mentioned at the time? Perhaps it would be good if the organisers or UCI published information about the doping controls, as well as the day’s results, in a timely and completely transparent way.

Alistair7 yes it is embarrassing that that information is not readily available. To build trust cycling has not only got to be doing the right thing but it’s also got to be seen doing it. Also I would suggest that a lot of people need to do some deep breathing exercises, calm down and think before reacting

markrprior Alistair7 Where is the evidence that it wasn’t queried? Maybe journalists contacted Sky and were informed there was a blood test. Which journalists did uci_overlord contact? There’s not a whole lot of transparency in his post regarding that.

It’s a real shame you have acted in this way UCI_Overlord . So called “non de plume idiots” haev a valuable role to play asking questions that journalists cannot due to libel laws, ad revenue or other reasons, some genuine, some poor excuses. You say that you want a system of Trust, but verify. Once Sky were aware of the article they “verifyed” within 48hrs.
Unfortunately your response to this shows that you re not actually interested in verification but in slinging mud at people/teams that you re not a fan of. I wonder would you have written the piece at all if it had been Taylor Phinney or TVG being interviewed with a plaster on?
All that this means is that Riders, Cycling Teams and Authorities will continue to ignore the “idiots” (other, more scrupulous bloggers included) as the evidence suggests that they are only interested in stirring the pot rather than genuinely supporting Truth and Transparency. Pieces and childish responses like this just mean that any genuinely important questions will be lost under a pile of wild, baseless accusations.
All it took to undo all of the above was an admission that in this case you were wrong and the balls to stand up like a man and admit it. Shame.

ddraver UCI_Overlord 48 hrs, you kidding? May I remind you Lance got a backdated Cortisone prescription within minutes. I don’t believe Wiggo doped, frankly he was the favorite, but a piece of paper doesn’t ‘verify’ shit.. After the ride they took us on the past 15 years, the onus is on them to make us believe again, not call us ‘cunts’. Can you imagine other sporting champs like Federer, Nadal, Woods, Vettel do that if we question their performances? I would frankly not like to hear about Bradley’s supposed alcoholism or see pictures of him smoking. Patron of the sport my arse.
What does overlord have to admit to? Before Fran’s post we still thought there was no post race blood controls, and so he asked a legitimate question.

WilliamE ddraver UCI_Overlord Yep – franmillar became aware of it 48hrs ago. Are you suggesting she should have every bit of paper pertaining to the team with her at all times just so she can answer questions?
If you re not satisfied by the paper, can I ask what would satisfy you? Do you expect teams to video every dope test or something? Wiggins calling people like cyclismas Cunts was out of order but he has apologised and given his views on doping and the Armstrong case quite clearly since then. Again, Can I ask him what more you expect him to do? If you don’t want to see him drinking, then don’t look, it’s not too difficult. He has also said many times that he does not want to be a patron of anything
UCI_Overlord needs to admit that in this case he was wrong to imply Sky were doping (yes you did, be honest!) and Thank Sky for their timely response. A hat tip to nedboulting bradwiggins would nt go amiss either.

ddraver WilliamE UCI_Overlord franmillar As I said, ‘I don’t believe Wiggo doped’ so I’m not ‘unsatisfied’ as you would suggest, I’m saying Overlord had a valid reason for writing this piece, and doesn’t need to say sorry for asking the question.
As winner of the TDF he is automatically the one every child looks up to, whether he wants the responsibility or not, it’s his, act accordingly. As for Armstrong, Bradley only said he was ‘shocked’ by the evidence and regurgitated the same old ‘we need to move on’.
Frankly there are a lot of questions of questions that could be asked. Sean Yates who managed Armstrong’s team and tested positive himself, now manages sky. After a dismal 2010, they hired Geert Leenders, a known dope doctor. Micheal Rogers who admitted to working with Ferrari, is there. Michael Barry who recently admitted to doping was there. Tenerife training camps. Not to mention the added pressure of a shitload of money pumped into the team with an expectation to win the tour within 5 years.

WilliamE ddraver UCI_Overlord franmillar Will – ask those questions then. They are valid.
Even if the article had been written in a totally unbiased wasy(I don’t think anyone can truly say that it isnt massively anti-Sky/anti-Wiggins). This one has been shown to not be true so admit it, don’t try and still claim high ground, it just devalues all the valid questions. Next time, no one will bother answering and we ll have taken a step backwards. It would have been much easier if @UCI_Overlord had been much less biased in the first place but hey-ho.
I agree that Wiggins has been forced into the position he is in, but I think he has done well enough at it thus far (cunts comment aside). It depends if you want a genuine personality as patron or the bucket of wallpaper paste we got last year.
I also agree with you that Sky have nt been playing things very well PR wise with regard to Leenders, Rogers and Barry (to say the least). The next few weeks will be interesting in that regard. (not sure how you can criticise Training Camps in Tenerife I have to say..). I tend to agree with people who suggest that a “Team Sky” would never have existed without the 100% No Tolerance approach as British Companies would have sponsored it. Thus they have to walk this (impossible) line. It would be nice if Cyclismas and other Twitter Taliban asked similar questions of the other Pro Tour Teams too, but somehow it always seems to be Sky. I’m setting myself up for a flaming here, but I regard Sky and Garmin as the best 2 teams in the Pro Tour with regard to anti-doping, the other 16 (sixteen!!) are severely lagging behind! (or sponsorless)

Tenerife has only a single airport. One way in, one way out. Easy to get a tip off if doping controls arrive. Armstrong’s teams trained there and Dr. Ferrari was also frequently spotted there, as Leipheimer’s affidavit shows.

Dear Wiggo ddraver WilliamE UCI_Overlord franmillar I was referring to the Guardian Article…
PeterDH I never said anything about him being a nice working bloke. Like most Pro-Sportsmen, I think Wiggins is far from the sharpest tool in the box (he even admits so in his autobiography – the first one I think…). I doubt whoever does his taxes bothers him much about it. Just a guess tho.

Actually Nadal is very vocal that he doesn’t like Anti-doping controls. He complained last year about having to give his whereabouts and he had in total one test all year. There is lots out there about he reacts to anti doping. Very suspicious. I wouldn’t use him as an example in future as there are massive question marks over him, almost as many as Armstrong had.

OK – i return to this thread after two days, and i’m shocked to see how polarised the opinions seem to be, but aside fromt he bickering there seems to be very little objective analysis to verify what actually happened. Have people learnt nothing over the last, oh , say 20 years! Seriously – it is trust, but verify!!
So, here are the objective questions that i have. Hopefully, both sides of this argument can understand the need for them to be independently verified.
Can someone provide me documentation to support Fran Millars statement regarding the top 5 being tested that day. So, far we have seen only Brads slip, but the UCI testing is a matter of public record. So, please verify who were tested that day.
Can someone please clarify the 30 minute rule to me (notification to presentation at doping control – UCI EO212 183-185), and clearly show why this period has been exceeded – and there are legitimate reasons that could allow this excess time.
Can someone please verify that Bradley Wiggins was chaperoned following notification – a name of the official should be on record.
Can someone please verify to me how a UCI blood test is performed. Extracted from where, how much etc. Even the brand/type of plaster used would be useful.
For the record, I admire Bradley Wiggins greatly – but he has to understand that the burden of proof is correlated strongly with amazing feats.
I’m sure my reasonable expectations can be met, and my questions answered. I hope they are.

dwbeever
Pfffft – So do you expect Fran Millar to have documentation for the 3 other teams who were tested that day now? The other questions are all for the UCI, it’s their documentation and their testing.
Got to be honest, bud. I think you might be better off without sport if this is what you need off of every race winner or for every dope test, this will not happen ever!

ddraver dwbeever now we’re making a start. ‘3 other teams’ tested that day you say – where did you get that info from? you’re ahead of me.
re access to info – as i understand it all doping control details are posted publicly at the finish, not least of all on the side of the doping control unit. it would be nice if someone could relay this info.
re fran millar. is it reasonable to expect that she answers all my questions. possibly not. it would be really nice though, and it would stamp out a great deal of uncertainty. however, i would though like to think that she could verify her ‘top 5′ statement though (as it runs contrary to standard practice), just like you can do your ‘3 other’.
and this isn’t about verifying every racewinner. fran millar chose to interject in a very public manner to solicit an email address that was already public in order to address issues within this blog. so, having chosen to add fuel to the fire, she has it within her means to extinguish said fire….

dwbeever
The 3 other teams came from the fact that the top 5 were tested that day. I think Chris Froome was in the top 5 leaving 3 other riders (assuming 2 of them were nt on the same team, but I may be wrong).
I think you re asking questions to the wrong person. If ther info is in the public domain then you re welcome to check it up for yourself, If you find something amiss then ask Team Sky to explain.
Personally I would nt have know where to find an address for Cyclismas, so she asked on twitter. This is a website of unidentified people who exist only in the twitterverse or on the web. There wasnt much else she could do. I’m afraid I think that one is on very thin ice complaining that someone contacts you in a public manner when you ve written an anonymous blog on the internet…There are good points and bad points about anonymity!

dwbeever ddraver from what Fran Millar said, I should not have said fact. That said it is a fact that I cant see why she’d have reason to make that up. The stage winner and GC leader are both tested so Wiggins should have been tested twice! 😉

dwbeever see my post down the page – it was just over an hour between Brad finishing the TT and him receiving notification of the test. In between is the podium ceremony, but I am unaware of how long that takes.
Blood tests according to WADA protocols must occur 2+ hours after exercise, 10 minutes seated, exercise / training / altitude / health factors taken recorded via questioning.

I’m interested to see your response to Team Sky’s production of Wiggins’ notification form. Instead of acknowledging that your sources were wrong and that as a result, you had cocked up, you raise unrelated additional ‘issues’ with Sky’s no-dopers policy. Any fair-minded fan reading your pieces over the last year, and your Twitter feed, will just conclude that you’ve just got it in for Team Sky. It amuses me that when Sky said they’d win a GT within 5 years, you all said that was naive and unrealistic, and that Brailsford might have worked out track racing but he was clueless about road-racing, etc., etc. Then, when Wiggins won the Dauphine and Paris-Nice, you said well, what a surprise, he’s quite a good week-long stage racer, but he’d wilt in the Tour, and that and he and Sky, being so ‘naive’, had got him to peak too soon. Finally, he tackles the Tour and doesn’t go blasting off in the mountains, but instead of acknowledging that this is a fair indication he’s racing clean, you go on about how Froome would be a better GC choice and Sky had cocked up again. Neither Wiggins nor Sky can do anything right as far as you’re concerned.
And now you cast aspersions on him with this pathetic ex-post-facto nonsense… by the way, it is NOT true to say this plaster picture attracted no attention at the time. I recall it being mentioned by at least one journo on Twitter, and someone replied that it was a legit blood test, following which it faded from attention. Your attempt to raise it as a ‘philosophical’ point is disingenuous. It is simply part of a demonstrable issue you lot have with Sky. Now, I don’t know whether you or Sky are right over the issue of how to deal with ex-dopers. But I think the Sky approach is at least brave and novel. Whether it’s better to at least try, or to just accept that doping happened and pat ex-dopers on the back with a 6-month retrospective ban because they’ve testified against the Great Satan, I don’t know. Personally, I think the ‘truth and reconciliation’ approach might be best, if the UCI can ever clean up its act to implement it. But that doesn’t get away from the fact that you cannot deny you just don’t like Sky, period.

About Cyclismas

A fresh take on cycling satire and commentary, Cyclismas is an alternative to traditional cycling news coverage; we challenge conventional cycling wisdom with a wide variety of voices, using a variety of media – all with integrity, but not without humor.